Magnify, Unpixelate...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Magnify, Unpixelate, Unblur super tiny text JPG (in Dutch!)

9 Posts
5 Users
0 Likes
4,005 Views
(@blkrsenmaiden)
Posts: 4
New Member
Topic starter
 

roll 😯 Note Please DO NOT post, if you don't know the answer! Please do not list thousands of posts, that say "I don't know". That makes it difficult to discuss the question and gets the thread off topic! If you don't know, then just don't say anything!

I am sure there IS an answer to this question. Its just a matter of discussing it intelligently and some trial and error. Thousands of posts saying that there is no answer / that you don't know, are unhelpful. Thankyou.

The problem is that no program I have tried (and I have looked through literally dozens) will unpixelate / unblur or magnify the super tiny Dutch Text in the JPG in question.

You download the JPG from the online periodical Museum. But, when you go to "Print" the JPG image, the text is utterly unreadable. It seems like it would be readable on a 8" x 10" page, but at that size its too small to make out.

When you enlarge it to the size of the original paper (36" by 36" or so) the text is sheer pixelated rubbish. Here is a link to the schematic, the text is in Dutch, the museum is in the Netherlands (Holland)

http//www.geheugenvannederland.nl/?/en/items/GMDH01200001016/&p=1&i=5&t=236&st=1865&sc=cql.serverChoice%20all%20%221865%22%20AND%20%28isPartOf%20any%20%22GMDH01%22%20%29/

Why would I need the text? Well its a long boring complicated story, but the basic bottom line is that not only do I need it, but I need it instantly and I need it urgently !!

The text is "directions" to how to put together the schematic (its a group of sewing patterns, overlaid each other to save space). The text explains WHICH pattern is on the page, what numbers go together, how to put them together, which materials to use, and much more. The directions do not exist outside of the schematic and are not printed in the Periodical!

The main text of the publication gives very little instruction. The larger main text is readable, but the instructions in the main text are not related directly to the schematic. I need the schematic instructions!

The instructions are in Dutch, but that is the least of my worries. If it came down to it, I could use a translation program. But the translation program HAS TO READ THE TEXT. So no matter how you look at it, I have to get readable text, before I can go to any other step.

I would have uploaded the JPG, but this site doesn't allow attachments, so you will have to view it through the link. Why is this happening? Because when the Museum took pictures of the schematics, they used microfilm, instead of scanning the pages.

The reason is probably that they didn't want to damage the paper, which is very fragile. The link is to an issue from 1865 periodical magazine, compiled by the Museum. The paper is antique and might be damaged by a large scanning machine.

In the distant future its possible that the Museum might rescan the schematics with a smaller and lighter scanner yet to be invented. However I need the unpixelated text RIGHT NOW. I have gone through numerous "Forensic" Unblur programs. These tend to make the problem considerably worse. (I would upload examples, but I cant add attachments.)

Typically, Unblur programs correct for "noise" and they correct for movement blurs. This worsens the problem, and you were better off with the original that you already know you cant read.

I have also tried a couple of magnification programs, which I think might work better, but so far have not come up with "The Answer". (Magnification and Unblur programs are different. Magnification does different tasks).

So far the best one I have tried was onOne, which gave me a fairly sharp image (it was improved, but not readable) and no worsening of the JPG original at all. That's great, but it didn't achieve the readability of the text. If you want a starting point, try the onOne sharpening program, maybe you can get results from it that I could not? That one was the best one I tried.

I am really hoping that the Forensics Forum will know of a program that will work! At least if more people are discussing it, that the progress will be faster than I have seen in just going through lists of sharpening and unblur programs, none of which yield results.

The original text is actually quite small. I am an antiques collector and I have copies of the original schematics, like the ones in the Museum which are shown. The original text on paper, is smaller than the average print in a book. My vision is quite good, but most other people might need glasses or a magnifying glass (or at least very good light) to read it, just holding it up.

I think the person taking the original Museum microfilm JPG film, just didn't consider that this schematic text is smaller than the periodical text. And didn't check to see if it was readable when the JPG was printed. (I am not sure when the microfilm JPG's were produced, I think sometime in the late 1990's.)

Does the Forensic Forum know the Magnification (or sharpening) Program that will unpixelate or magnify the text to readable? *Think about whether a translation program could read it*

Please, if you don't know, please don't post. Its really a hassle wading through dozen's of posts that say " I don't know" or "there is no answer". Please only post if you KNOW the answer, so we can keep this ON TOPIC. ~Thanks oops

 
Posted : 01/04/2016 7:45 pm
jaclaz
(@jaclaz)
Posts: 5133
Illustrious Member
 

Unfortunately, there is a possibility that you did not consider.
1) Someone will post a random recommendation (NOT useful, please don't)
2) Someone will post a good recommendation (that will solve the problem at hand)
3) Someone will post how the image, at the size that is provided for download, DOES NOT have a resolution fine enough to actually CONTAIN enough info.

Whilst #3 above may be considered a subset of #1, so I shouldn't have posted, I wanted you to know how the issue does not lie with a program (or the other), NO program can "invent" data that is not there.

The image is 1200 × 883 pixel in size at a (low) resolution of 72dpi, print size of 423,33 × 311,50 (an A3 format) in RGB colour space.
The top left part you are interested in is roughly 141 × 333 pixel.

Since it contains more than 60 lines in 333 pixel of height (including white space betwen the lines, and some at the top and at the bottom and the tile which is much larger), the height of a single character is 3 or 4 pixels.

The sheer minimum in which you can have a primitive bitmap font is 5 pixels, and it is barely legible anyway, example
http//robey.lag.net/2010/01/23/tiny-monospace-font.html
and it is "high contrast" being B&W, while you have a scale of shades of gray which further reduces readability.

Additionally the .jpg is a "lossy" compression format optimized by design to render photos, not "scans" and the algorithms have a built-in tendency to further "blur" B&W images, JFYI
http//www.scantips.com/basics9j.html
http//www.samhallas.co.uk/repository/scanning.htm

It is entirely possible that the image posted online and available for download is a low-resolution conversion for "web use" and the museum can provide upon request (and possibly for a fee) higher resolution images, you may want to contact them and enquiry about this.

jaclaz

 
Posted : 01/04/2016 9:37 pm
(@blkrsenmaiden)
Posts: 4
New Member
Topic starter
 

Hello, actually several of the Unblur / Sharpen programs DO supplement the Pixels, they add pixels, to "approximate" the image.

That is the crux of your point I believe? It is sometimes true, sometimes false~ some programs compensate and add pixels where there are not enough.

The Unblur programs that add pixels, unfortunately overcompensate so far with the removal of noise or the removal of hand blurring, that even with higher resolution, you cant see anything.

Most programs have the option of choosing the resolution, they add pixels in the process.

I think your suggestion of contacting the Museum might work, it might not, but its a good idea. They are likely to ask me if I am another large European Museum or Library and if I am not, they may not be eager to answer my phone calls further (welcome to European beurocracy–lol )

Really I am fishing for an Unblur program that WORKS. I know that some do add pixels. Did you try onOne? Maybe you can get that to do a back flip in a way that I failed to do? Thankyou

 
Posted : 01/04/2016 11:00 pm
jaclaz
(@jaclaz)
Posts: 5133
Illustrious Member
 

Hello, actually several of the Unblur / Sharpen programs DO supplement the Pixels, they add pixels, to "approximate" the image.

That is the crux of your point I believe? It is sometimes true, sometimes false~ some programs compensate and add pixels where there are not enough.

The Unblur programs that add pixels, unfortunately overcompensate so far with the removal of noise or the removal of hand blurring, that even with higher resolution, you cant see anything.

Most programs have the option of choosing the resolution, they add pixels in the process.

No they don't "add" any pixel, they may well re-sample the existing info and provide a "better visual approximation", as a matter of fact the process is usuallly called "de-pixelization", example
http//nickdarnell.github.io/depixelizer/
try the above with this image (example)

or - which is more what you want/need - "vectorization", or "tracing", see as an example
http//vectormagic.com/home/comparisons
Particularly, check
http//vectormagic.com/support/tutorials/scans

Still all these programs have a GIGO limit, Garbage In, Garbage Out, the original information is processed through a given algorithm (and of course some programs may have "better" algorithms than other ones), but if there is not enough info "in" there is also not enough info "out".

Really I am fishing for an Unblur program that WORKS. I know that some do add pixels. Did you try onOne? Maybe you can get that to do a back flip in a way that I failed to do? Thankyou

You are welcome, of course, but sorry there is no way to get the small text readable from that low-res source.

jaclaz

 
Posted : 02/04/2016 12:18 am
kacos
(@kacos)
Posts: 93
Trusted Member
 

I think your suggestion of contacting the Museum might work, it might not, but its a good idea. They are likely to ask me if I am another large European Museum or Library and if I am not, they may not be eager to answer my phone calls further (welcome to European beurocracy–lol ) ..

If you don't ask you'll never find out wink

 
Posted : 02/04/2016 4:44 pm
(@blkrsenmaiden)
Posts: 4
New Member
Topic starter
 

???

Ha ha ha, guys.

Please do NOT list thousands of nonsensical posts, proving with encyclopedic accuracy that you have NO IDEA what the answer is. Oh, the hilarity! (

Here is a youtube demo of how to use sharpening software. Notice how he adds pixels, with the software, when he improves the resolution. All software programs do this! Do you actually use software, or just troll forums?

YouTube tut on Sharpen Software (this guy invented a software program, I tried it, it didn't work, FYI. However, go ahead and use it yourself, all of these programs offer a free trial for you one gig, typically)

https://youtu.be/8u-LQsvn3fY

Thanks, have a great weekend

 
Posted : 03/04/2016 10:34 pm
(@blkrsenmaiden)
Posts: 4
New Member
Topic starter
 

Also, thankyou for the fun graphic illustration links. I was thinking of lifting some of the antique graphic illustrations out of the periodical to use in advertising or in various other forms of graphics down the road, so I will keep this vector program in mind for it. That has very little to do with reading the De Gracieuse schematics, but it will be handy on other things, like fonts. So, not the answer, but gave me a moments entertainment –lol

The closest software program I have found to work was a photography program, called On1 Perfect Resizer 9 or 10. This can be downloaded for free trial. Since you were kind enough to give me direct links to the Vector Graphics page, I will reciprocate and give you the direct link to this site also. Its a fun site. Maybe you can get it to work, on the schematics pages. It gave me the most clear image of any I tried, including your depixelizer page, which was notably pixelated.

https://www.on1.com/apps/resize9/

Have Fun! Its a great site, over all. Its called onOne in the trial version.

 
Posted : 03/04/2016 11:04 pm
(@mscotgrove)
Posts: 938
Prominent Member
 

I think 'unblurring' is the wrong approach. The information has been lost.

You have a series of very low resolution images, but you are aware that they are characters. I would have a jolly good guess at the original font, and then save the character set with the same resolution as your image. You can then compare 'blob' with 'blob' and hopefully get most of the original characters back.

You might try the same with words rather than characters - I presume you may have a good guess of possible words in the text.

I believe (my memory may be vague) they did something similar with Hubble, ie worked on what original image would create the image seen

 
Posted : 03/04/2016 11:34 pm
(@infoseccow)
Posts: 14
Active Member
 

Blkrsenmaiden,
I thought about your problem overnight and was wondering if you have tried converting the image from a raster format to a vector format? A number of people have indicated that your image quality may be insufficient to derive the data you need. It is also possible that a raster to vector conversion might give you enough that when you increase the vector images size your brain is still able to process the letters?

 
Posted : 04/04/2016 3:34 pm
Share: